Pathfinder 2E Rate Pathfinder 2E

[The Crimson Binome]

I'm clearly not communicating well. I have two separate thoughts. I don't get edition wars. I am not saying disagreements are that, I am saying I don't get edition wars.

I am separately failing to understand what you couldn't do in 4e or PF2 that you want to do?

I have acknowledged that rules inform the details of the story... But what can't people do that they want to do?

In short, they want to tell specific types of stories, which unfold in ways that make sense to them. That's something which you can't do, if the rules tell us that events unfold differently.

For example, maybe the GM has an idea for a country with draconic affiliation, which executes prisoners by dropping them from a great height. That's not a story element which can exist in a game where falls cap out at ~70 damage and HP totals extend into the hundreds.

Personally, I want to see stories where people go out of their way to avoid unnecessary combat, because even when you know that you can win, catching a couple of arrows is still an unpleasant experience. That is the logical process which I want to see play out, but it's not something that can happen in any world where the repercussions of an arrow attack are removed after a short nap.

More generally, the idea behind an edition war is that the edition in question will tend to produce narratives that are illogical and not worth the effort of playing out, especially in comparison to some alternative edition. It's saying, I can't possibly have fun while playing Edition X, because I know that the result of play will be unsatisfactory, and/or it's unpleasant to try and role-play a character in that world.

 

[BryonD]

I'm clearly not communicating well. I have two separate thoughts. I don't get edition wars. I am not saying disagreements are that, I am saying I don't get edition wars.

I am separately failing to understand what you couldn't do in 4e or PF2 that you want to do?

I have acknowledged that rules inform the details of the story... But what can't people do that they want to do? The GM and players have a ton of freedom here. I've played several adventures in nearly every single person if the game, for example.

Since this is a PF2 thread, help me understand what you can't do given the rules. Or not, we might be taking part each other now, unfortunately.

Please go back and read what I wrote.
As I have stated several times now, you clearly can tell any story and do anything you want to in PF2E.

But the mechanics, by intent, do not place stress on the narrative elements when determining resolution.
I have already explained that.
The fact that you are in this most recent reply again challenging me to explain what I "can't do" suggests you either are not paying attention to what is said, or you don't have an answer for it and you are trying to force other people's opinions into something you are comfortable challenging rather than addressing the actual statement.


Also, it is now completely unclear why you brought up the term "edition wars" in the first place. People certainly get emotional. But here the phrase just seems to be a loaded term intended to discredit an opinion.
I don't find PF2E remotely satisfying. And, yes, that is a bummer to me. But I have zero dispute with someone else thinking it is awesome. Can we agree that this is a difference of preference, possibly worth understanding, maybe not, but "edition war" is premature at best?

 

[Zaukrie]

Please go back and read what I wrote.
As I have stated several times now, you clearly can tell any story and do anything you want to in PF2E.

But the mechanics, by intent, do not place stress on the narrative elements when determining resolution.
I have already explained that.
The fact that you are in this most recent reply again challenging me to explain what I "can't do" suggests you either are not paying attention to what is said, or you don't have an answer for it and you are trying to force other people's opinions into something you are comfortable challenging rather than addressing the actual statement.


Also, it is now completely unclear why you brought up the term "edition wars" in the first place. People certainly get emotional. But here the phrase just seems to be a loaded term intended to discredit an opinion.
I don't find PF2E remotely satisfying. And, yes, that is a bummer to me. But I have zero dispute with someone else thinking it is awesome. Can we agree that this is a difference of preference, possibly worth understanding, maybe not, but "edition war" is premature at best?

I missed something you said up thread , or forgot while replying, so I'm what? Of course we can agree on that last point, since I've typed that already.

 

[Blue]

Without trying to derail the thread too much, I don't think bounded accuracy is the gold standard of game design. It's frankly boring, contributes to the feeling of "sameness" between levels, makes characters hit monsters most of the time, takes teeth out of the enemies, makes the game too easy, removes magic items and gear as a mechanical reward of play, etc.

I agree Bounded Accuracy is not the only way to design games, and I'm glad there's variety out there.

That said, just about everything you claimed doesn't seem like an issue inherent with Bounded Accuracy. Or rather, some are because of bounded accuracy, but they are seen as features based on feedback from surveys and D&D Next feedback.

contributes to the feeling of "sameness" between levels - a number ticking upwards should be the least part of levelling. If levels all feal the same, that's a class design issue.

makes characters hit monsters most of the time - which is something that addresses as common player issue of having impotent rounds. In other words, commonly seen as a feature.

takes teeth out of the enemies - monsters hitting mroe often takes out their teeth? low level monsters still providing a viable threat takes out their teeth? The only place this has any truth is more powerful monsters, but since their HPs were scaled up when their AC was scaled down, t's not even true there.

makes the game too easy - 100% monster math. Whihc is a real issue. But not on bounded accuracy.

removes magic items and gear as a mechanical reward of play - I think you mean removes the requirement that all characters get magic attack boosters and magic armor to keep up with expected math. Which (a) is something players as a whole wanted and (b) is completely false - that's monster math. Monster math scaling by CR/tier faster then native PCs math is what does that.

 

[Blue]

I agree. I remain utterly clueless as to why Paizo completely missed the writing on the wall here (that 5E represents the way most people want to play) and created such a throw-back game to the pre-5E era.

Different games for different folks. They know their audience, which wanted something different that D&D 4e and 5e, and are catering to them. While I strongly like Bounded Accuracy in 5e, 5e is aiming at a different niche.

 

[Blue]

Given the choice between a tough PF2 monster, where you rarely hit him unless you think up clever ways to do so, and the tough 5E monster, which is pretty much as easy to hit as anything else, but just requires you to grind away more hits, I'd definitely go with PF2.

PF2 models Bard shooting Smaug and countless similar legendary encounters. In 5E Bard needs to keep shooting arrows for a while, doing about as well as 2-3 generic archers could do as Smaug gets slowly whittled down. To me that is double-plus-unfun. If you want bounded accuracy, just play 5E. PF2 is for those of us who find bounded accuracy unrealistic (not a huge issue), not in genre (somewhat of an issue) and boring (a big issue).

Let me restate what I am reading: the biggest issue is that if you are fighting a big threat, hitting regularly is boring?

I find that missing, especially wasted rounds are boring. A think I'll even go so far to say that if I'm either grinding for hits or grinding HPs, the one where I am at least contributing regularly is definitively less boring.

 

[neostrider]

I would recognize that both are a grind and not a valuable use of table time. I also think the system has 2 impacts on that experience: the amount of grind per level disparity, the amount of control the player has to reduce their grind.

In the Gates of Mordor examples, what's not handled is the player's ability to roleplay or think around a problem. (Ignoring the possibility of having a mini adventure to avoid a skill check) PF1 had a simple but mathematical solution: dozens of +1 bonuses. 5E asks for a good enough reason then prescribes advantage. PF2 teases out a few +1 bonuses and casts your fate to the die.

A dragon fight is a good example. PF1 dragon fights practically begged an epic all night slog of wheeling out ballista, spells, plenty of supplies, maybe a few NPCs, and GM plz for everyone's enjoyment don't just plop it down and full attack the fighter in a static fight.

5e and from what I've seen of PF2 so far, want to stay in a cave and trade hit points. Tracking dragon movement is reduced, hitting is expected... there's less tension in my mind because possibilities are reduced and the numbers are more predetermined.

This is fine for the group that wants the dragon fight to end in an hour or two. I think PF2 left a niche behind with the players that kept PF1 alive for 3.X's different kind of story telling potential.

 

[Zaukrie]

Please go back and read what I wrote.
As I have stated several times now, you clearly can tell any story and do anything you want to in PF2E.

But the mechanics, by intent, do not place stress on the narrative elements when determining resolution.
I have already explained that.
The fact that you are in this most recent reply again challenging me to explain what I "can't do" suggests you either are not paying attention to what is said, or you don't have an answer for it and you are trying to force other people's opinions into something you are comfortable challenging rather than addressing the actual statement.


Also, it is now completely unclear why you brought up the term "edition wars" in the first place. People certainly get emotional. But here the phrase just seems to be a loaded term intended to discredit an opinion.
I don't find PF2E remotely satisfying. And, yes, that is a bummer to me. But I have zero dispute with someone else thinking it is awesome. Can we agree that this is a difference of preference, possibly worth understanding, maybe not, but "edition war" is premature at best?

I woke up this morning, and realized what you are trying to say. I don't know what specific way the rules and fiction don't work for you, but I realized you were saying what some baseball fans say......the three true outcome era is still baseball, but not the baseball they most like.

 

[BryonD]

PF2 teases out a few +1 bonuses and casts your fate to the die.

Exactly. The difference between completely anti-optimized and fully optimized is typically going to be something like 40% vs 65%.

I think PF2 left a niche behind with the players that kept PF1 alive for 3.X's different kind of story telling potential.

agreed

 

[BryonD]

I woke up this morning, and realized what you are trying to say. I don't know what specific way the rules and fiction don't work for you, but I realized you were saying what some baseball fans say......the three true outcome era is still baseball, but not the baseball they most like.

Not sure I follow the baseball metaphor. But, yes. With the point being "not really even close to most like".

Let me ask you this: I'm playing 2E. My character wants to hit a minotaur with a stick. You can ask one question and you need to guess my odds of success. What one question do you ask?